Aussagewert röntgenologischer und endoskopischer Untersuchungen beim Magenkarzinom

Abstract

The accuracy of radiology in the diagnosis of gastric carcinomas was checked on 232 cases, including 24 early examples. Accuracy depends most of all on the experience of the radiologist. Amongst 146 patients, using a satisfactory technique, a carcinoma was diagnosed in 131 patients (90%) and suspected in eight (6%). In five (3%) the changes were misinterpreted as being benign and the lesion was missed in two (1%). Of 120 gastric carcinomas submitted to operation a correct diagnosis had been made radiologically in 88% and suspected in 4%; endoscopically, the diagnosis was made in 92% and suspected in 2%. Of the 24 early carcinomas, both methods suggested the presence of a malignant lesion in 80%. The combination of radiology, endoscopy, hitology and cytology increases accuracy to 95%. These results indicated that localised changes in the gastric mucosa and the wall of the stomach can be demonstrated only by using refined radiological techniques; each lesion should be confirmed by endoscopy and histology.

Radiologic Examination in Gastric Cancer

“…For this reason the sensitivity is considered to be the most important factor in the detection of gastric cancer, and a falsely positive radiologic diagnosis should be accepted in order not to overlook malignant lesions. The sensitivity of radiology in the present series, in detecting a malignancy and recognizing its malignant character, was 86 per cent and is comparable to other reported series (4,21,23,25). The sensitivity ofradiology in this study was only 5 per cent lower as compared with the histologic findings of biopsies.…”

“…The combination of radiology, endoscopy and biopsy increases the sensitivity in diagnosing a malignant lesion to about 97 per cent, confirming the literature data (4,(20)(21)(22)(23).…”

“…Attention was paid to the quality of the examination technique and the interpretation of radiologic signs of malignancy. These signs have been described in detail (10,(21)(22)(23)(24) and are illustrated in Fig. 1.…”